If this was a legal criteria the population of Earth would be 7 million
Swearing in Star Trek - Steve Shives
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
If this was a legal criteria the population of Earth would be 7 million
how about 'shut up and watch'? that worked for milleniaIf this was a legal criteria the population of Earth would be 7 million
Last edited:
Mine was about killing on TV, not sex.If this was a legal criteria the population of Earth would be 7 million
Unless that was an accidental quote.
Thankfully for our species a lot of bumbling fools reproduce! 
Thankfully for our species a lot of bumbling fools reproduce!
Sometimes being a bumbling fool helps.
Proof that if I ever decide to become a supervillain, the world will have nothing to fear.
Thankfully for our species a lot of bumbling fools reproduce!
It's almost enough to make you doubt Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, isn't it?
Proof that if I ever decide to become a supervillain, the world will have nothing to fear.
i hate to say it but as a supervillain you suck
It's why second children tend to be so close in age to their older sibling, the parents know their child can't walk in on them having sex when they're sleeping in a crib.
Third children tend to be conceived while the parents are on vacation away from the other two kids.
I hate to say it but as a supervillain you suck
I know. I mean, wanting to wipe out the human race, but doesn't want to actually... you know, hurt anybody? Kind of a contradiction in terms, isn't it?
No, but they might wake up in said crib and start screaming their head off, making it very difficult to sustain... ah, the mood.
The "fittest" doesn't necessarily mean someone who's fit or in top shape or of great intelligence. It means someone who's more likely to survive under a set of conditions. "Intelligence" for example can be useless and even a burden. If your survival depends on repeating the same mindless tasks without fatigue or hesitation then the more intelligence you have to more you'll suffer and the less motivated you'll be to have descendants.
Hmmm... maybe that's the point the writers of "Threshold" were trying to make... the nature of our lifestyle and society is such that we're actually de-evolving into clueless salamander-like creatures.
Who would have thought that the worst episode of Trek ever would hide such a clever message?
Who would have thought that the worst episode of Trek ever would hide such a clever message?
And yet, I can read that just fine. Or is that because I was an English major?
Everyday society during the Trump years and COVID makes Darwin weep. 
No, it's not because you were an English major. It's because 380 years are but an eyeblink in the evolution of language.
The King James Bible, and all of Shakespeare's plays, were written over 400 years ago, and they're still Modern English. Archaic Modern English, but still Modern English.
I was never an English major, and yet I managed (with the help of Cliff's Notes) to get through The Canterbury Tales (around 600 years old) in the original Middle English. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to understand Beowulf (over 1000 years old) in the original Old English.
Depends on how one defines "fittest." One could define it as "the most ruthlessly greedy." Just as the assertion that Nazi Germany was "the most efficient state Earth ever knew" could be valid, depending on what you're saying it was efficent at.Everyday society during the Trump years and COVID makes Darwin weep.
Last edited:
Wheee! I got caught up!
I am always amused that most people have bought into the "Shakespearian language is highbrow" thing. There were always "curse words", nasty insults, and scatalogical jokes "for the groundlings".
Sometimes people just don't pay attention or don't care. When I saw Jurassic Park in the the theater, there were big signs saying "NOT A KIDS MOVIE" all over and some people still had 2-6 year olds.
That was meant as a joke. I have managed to get through The Canterbury Tales (VERY funny! and VERY rude!), but yes, Beowulf is sort of proto-English.
Poor Darwin! He really was trying to say "best adapted to its circumstances" or something like that and then all sorts of people had to come up with their stupid ideas of what "fittest" meant.
I am always amused that most people have bought into the "Shakespearian language is highbrow" thing. There were always "curse words", nasty insults, and scatalogical jokes "for the groundlings".
Sometimes people just don't pay attention or don't care. When I saw Jurassic Park in the the theater, there were big signs saying "NOT A KIDS MOVIE" all over and some people still had 2-6 year olds.
That was meant as a joke.
I have managed to get through The Canterbury Tales (VERY funny! and VERY rude!), but yes, Beowulf is sort of proto-English.Poor Darwin! He really was trying to say "best adapted to its circumstances" or something like that and then all sorts of people had to come up with their stupid ideas of what "fittest" meant.
And yet, I can read that just fine. Or is that because I was an English major?
Can you read Beowulf, in its original language that is?
Sometimes people just don't pay attention or don't care. When I saw Jurassic Park in the the theater, there were big signs saying "NOT A KIDS MOVIE" all over and some people still had 2-6 year olds.
If it helps, they probably paid for their decision for months when their kids had dinosaur nightmares and woke up screaming...
My cousin used to be the assistant manager at a theatre. One of the things that annoyed her was how often people would complain about "this movie is not appropriate for children, why wasn't I warned ahead of time?" Eventually she just started telling them "it's rated R, why were you even bringing children to begin with?"
It doesn't.
Similar threads
